MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306837121 · doi:10.1080/14767058.2022.2134772

Timing of cesarean delivery in women with uncomplicated placenta previa

2022· article· en· W4306837121 on OpenAlexaff
A. Schwartz, Daniela Chen, Shiri Shinar, Swati Agrawal, Yariv Yogev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta previaObstetricsGestationGestational agePregnancyCesarean deliveryExpectant managementGynecologyPlacentaFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The optimal timing of an elective cesarean delivery for uncomplicated placenta previa remains controversial. Although the present guidelines recommend an elective cesarean delivery between 360/7 and 376/7 weeks of gestation, data supporting this recommendation does not differentiate in outcomes between elective and emergent delivery, or between women with and without ante-partum hemorrhage. Recommendations regarding optimal timing of delivery are based on the risks and benefits associated with delivery at a certain gestational week, compared with a reference of 38 weeks. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to assess the maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes associated with elective delivery at different gestational weeks from 360/7 to 386/7 weeks compared with expectant management in women with uncomplicated placenta previa.Methods A retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary medical center of 251 women with a diagnosis of uncomplicated placenta previa, who delivered between 360/7 and 386/7 weeks of gestation, who delivered at our center between Jan 2011 and Dec 2019. Maternal and neonatal outcomes at each gestational week were compared with expectant management.Results At 360/7–366/7 weeks, the rate of composite maternal adverse outcome was similar for elective delivery and expectant management (10.5% vs 7.7%, p = .68). Similarly, at 370/7–376/7 the rate of composite maternal adverse outcome was comparable for elective cesarean delivery and expectant management (7.2% vs 6.4%, p = .54). Maternal bleeding was the main indication of an urgent cesarean delivery, and account for 86% of urgent cesarean delivery at 360/7–366/7, 76.4% of urgent cesarean delivery at 370/7–376/7, and for 70.6% of all urgent cesarean delivery at 380/7–386/7 weeks. This group of women who were delivered due to maternal bleeding had a history of maternal bleeding during 2nd and/or 3rd trimester in 75–92.3% of cases. Composite adverse neonatal outcome was similar for elective cesarean delivery at each gestational age compared with expectant management. The risk for lower 5-min APGAR score and hypoglycemia was higher for newborns that were delivered electively a 36th weeks of gestation compared with expectant management.Conclusion Our study suggests that the optimal time of delivery for women with an uncomplicated placenta previa is between 380/7 and 386/7 weeks of gestation, especially in women without ante-partum bleeding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207